Gringo, your answer is pure nonsense and debunked in the rebuttals to papers section, http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Rebuttals
The papers from Zeebe and deMenocola are not on the list anymore but the reasons why they were listed have nothing to do with what you quoted (1),
2. deMenocal et al. (2000) is listed explicitly under the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) section because it supports skeptic arguments for the existence of the MWP and that it was a global rather than a regional phenomenon.
The actual data from the paper shows,
"At Hole 658C, the LIA cooling is also represented by two distinct 3Â°Cto 4Â°C cooling events between ~1300 and 1900 A.D.; the earlier Medieval Warm Period (MWP), between ~400 and 1000 A.D., was only marginally warmer than present"
In their paper, Fig. 4 (West African SST) shows this clearly.
Regarding Peter deMenocal's comments,
"I've asked Dennis Avery of the Heartland Institute to take my name off [another similar] list four times and I've never had a response. There are 15 other Columbia colleagues on there as well ... and all want their names removed."
Since Dr. deMenocal does not know why his paper was listed he cannot make any such claim. He says he has said so "many times to them", who is "them"? Certainly not Popular Technology.net as I have never received an email from anyone on these issues. Dennis Avery's list has nothing to do with the Popular Technology.net's list as the former's wording is very different from ours. So confusing the two lists is a very serious mistake. Dr. deMenocal has never been included on any list here in relation to his personal position on AGW nor has the other Columbia colleagues he speaks of. I respect their personal position on this issue and have never attempted to misrepresent them. Their personal position on the issue does not prevent skeptics from using this paper to support skeptic arguments.
3. Zeebe et al. (2009) is listed because it supports skeptic arguments that CO2 was not a past primary climate driver and thus unlikely to be a current primary climate driver.
The actual data from the paper shows,
"At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5C of the warming inferred from proxy records."
Since up to 89?f the observed warming in the time period studied cannot be explained by CO2 forcing this clearly supports skeptic arguments against CO2 being a past primary climate driver. The paper explicitly mentions that other forcings would have to account for the discrepancy,
"If the temperature reconstructions are correct, then ...forcings other than atmospheric CO2 caused a major portion of the PETM warming."
Regarding Richard Zeebe's comments, "Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading."
This is a strawman argument as his paper is not used to support skepticism of AGW but rather AGW Alarm as there is nothing misleading about showing evidence that CO2 was not a past primary climate driver.
Pielke Jr.'s nonsense is refuted here (2)
Greenfyre's garbage is refuted here (3),
E&E is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal,
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek, Scopus and Thompson Reuters (ISI)
- Found at 180 libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.
- Thompson Reuters (ISI) Social Sciences Citation Index lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- The IPCC cites Energy & Environment multiple times
- "E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
- "I have published a few papers in E&E. All were peer-reviewed as usual. I have reviewed a few more for the journal." - Richard Tol Ph.D. Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands
- "All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed" - Multi-Science Publishing
- "Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed" - E&E Mission Statement
The scholarly peer-reviewed journal Energy & Environment only represents 10?f the list. There are over 1000 papers from over 300 other journals on the list.
Please get your facts straight before posting long debunked garbage.